Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19891218Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 RED RIBBON WEEK 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS 1 COUNCILMEM BER COMMENTS 1 CONSENT AG ENDA 2 ORDINANCE #69, SERIES OF 1989 - Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD 3 ORDINANCE #72, SERIES OF 1989 - Appropriations 21 ORDINANCE ##74, SERIES OF 1989 - Greystones Final Subdivis- ion 21 ORDINANCE #75, SERIES OF 1989 - Sportstalker Final Subdivis- ion 22 RESOLUTION ##53, SERIES OF 1989 - Residential GMQS Alloca- tion 23 ORDINANCE #79, SERIES OF 1989 - Kraut Subdivision Exemption 23 24 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Tuite, Crockett, Peters, Gassman and Mayor Stirling present. RED RIBBON WEEK Mayor Stirling read a proclamation declaring December 17 to 25 Aspen' s third red ribbon week as awareness not to drink or drug and drive. Council presented the proclamation to Larry Dragon of ASAP. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were none. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Mayor Stirling suggested Council continue for the meeting December 19th action items b through f. 729/731 Cemetery Lane subdivision exemption will be tabled to January 8, 1990. 2. Mayor Stirling said there is a request from the Commissioners to have a joint meeting to discuss office space . Council suggested January 15th. Bill Efting told Council he will check with the county and report back to Council. Mayor Stirling said there is a work session January 20th at 5:00 p.m. with the planning office to go over their legislative agenda. Mayor Stirling said a non- compliance hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, December 21. This may be addressed in the public hearing on the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD . 3. Councilman Peters asked that (c) Ute Avenue Special Improve- ment district be removed from the consent calendar. Bill Efting, acting city manager, told Council staff would like this tabled to January. 4. Councilman Peters said Council was supposed to discuss a joint study i\with the department of highways and alternate transporta- tion corridor at the last meeting. Councilman Peters said he would also like to discuss Jim Kent's involvement as a consultant to help carry the NEPA process forward. This will be discussed in conjunction with the draft EIS letter. 5. Councilman Gassman brought up the sidewalk maintenance and asked that staff look at the downtown area. 6. Councilman Gassman told Council the Aspen Independent Housing corporation is looking at putting a second story on the fire station and thrift shop. The housing authority has agreed to spend some money to go ahead with an engineering study to see if this is 1 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council December 18, 1989 feasible. This would be primarily for volunteer, emergency employees. 7. Councilman Gassman reported that the Meadow Ridge project is going ahead. The housing authority has selected Michael Thompson for the 13 single family units and Wayne Stryker for the apartments as architects. This will be financed by revenue bonds through the county. 8. Councilman Gassman told Council the housing authority has hired a contractor for the Marolt project. The contract is the same one working on Truscott place. Councilman Gassman said the costs are about $250,000 less than anticipated. 9. Councilman Tuite said he has had complaints about parking on Ute Avenue, that the parking has been wiped out by development. Councilman Tuite said he thought there was an agreement with 1010 Ute that they would supply additional parking across the street. Councilman Tuite asked staff to look into this. 10. Councilman Tuite said there was a shooting incident in the county recently. Councilman Tuite said he would like Council to entertain the possibility that should there be surplus 1989 funds, they look at funding the critical incident management person that was cut at the end of the budget hearing. 11. Councilman Tuite reported that ridership on RFTA buses is up from last year. Councilman Tuite said there is some overcrowding on the buses; RFTA is trying to put on more buses. 12. Kathryn Koch, city clerk, requested Council add the Hotel Jerome's liquor license renewal and a special event permit for Aspen Filmfest at the Isis for January 12th. Councilman Peters moved to add these to the consent agenda; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. Roxanne Eflin showed Council the historic preservation brochures which were completed recently. CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Gassman moved to approve the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilman Peters. The consent agenda is A. Minutes - November 27, 1989 B. Liquor License Renewal - Andres; Hotel Jerome C. Special Event Permit - Aspen filmfest All in favor, motion carried. 2 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 ORDINANCE #69, SERIES OF 1989 - Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD Sandy Stuller, city attorney's office, said as an outgrowth of the approval of the hotel in 1988, three lawsuits were initiated. The city was a defendant in all three. Ms. Stuller told Council a decision in one of these lawsuits was handed down, the issue in this case was whether or not it was appropriate for the city to have approved the project by resolution. Judge Ossola determined the city's charter provisions required this approval to be done by ordinance. Judge Ossola indicated that adjacent landowners and the public at large had an interest in reviewing the project, and this interest could only be achieved through public hearings. Ms. Stuller said the implication from the decision was that the ordinance procedure afforded more public notice and more public participation. The judge declared the approval null and void and remanded the matter back to the city for action consistent with his decision. Ms. Stuller told Council she interprets this to mean the judge would like the application reviewed under the ordinance procedures; these procedures were initiated at the November 27th meeting. Ms. Stuller submitted to the record a copy of Judge Ossola's decision, all the documents itemized as resource documents in the planning office memorandum of December 18, 1989, the hearing conducted before Council on November 28 concerning findings of non- compliance, the old and new land use codes, the Aspen city charter, and the entire record of this PUD subdivision application and all it's amendments. Amy Margerum, planning director, told Council staff did a review of the entire Aspen Mountain PUD as required for second reading of the ordinance. Ms. Margerum pointed out that lot 1 is the site of the proposed Ritz Carlton hotel and is approximately 128,000 square feet. This is zoned LTR (lodge/tourist/residential) which allows for a floor area of 1:1. The proposed hotel in the 1988 PUD approval was for 294 hotel units, not to exceed 292 bedrooms. The hotel includes 4 sections; 3 sections in the main building off Dean street and the Blue Spruce building connected by a pedestrian overpass. The Blue Spruce building has retail space on the ground floor and 24 hotel rooms. The hotel is in a horseshoe shape with the open space oriented towards the mountain. The average elevation on Dean street is between 48 and 51 feet. The top elevation of the elevators towers is 64 feet. The height normally allowed in the LTR district is 28 feet. Ms. Margerum told Council lot 2 is Summit Place, which is zoned LTR and is about 5360 square feet. The proposal was for 3 two-bedroom town houses of 7700 square feet. The next lot is Top of Mill at the base of the mountain. The PUD agreement stated the conceptual 3 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18~ 1989 approval for this was premature so staff does not know what the proposed development is. Ms. Margerum pointed out the development is tied to phase two of the hotel. Top of Mill is 5.6 acres and has 3 zone districts; 103, 000 square feet is zoned C, conservation; 49,741 square feet is zoned LTR, and 89,000 is zoned moderate density residential with a lodge overlay. The Top of Mill site is linked to lot 1 by a 50 foot wide strip of land. This creates an odd shaped PUD as generally PUDs are adjacent or contiguous lots. Ms . Margerum said lot 5 is linked to lot 3 in terms of development . The PUD agreement states that no more than 47 dwelling units may be located on both lots 3 and 5. Whatever is not built on lot 5 will be transferred up to the Top of Mill site. Lot 4 is called Galena place; 18,376 square feet and is zoned LTR. Four 3-bedroom residential units have been completed on this site. Lot 5 is the hotel phase two and the ice rink. The intent is to rezone the bottom of lot 5 to a new lot 6 where a rezoning to park would occur. This is about 2.6 acres, 12,000 square feet is zoned CL (commercial/lodge) and the rest is zoned LTR. Bob Hughes, representing the applicant, told Council they are hoping for adoption of a procedurally correct ordinance confirming and ratifying what everyone thought had been approved by resolution #29, 1988. Hughes said in doing this, Council will be validating all the applicants have done over the last year in reliance upon these approvals. Hughes said the applicants also want to clear up the non-compliance issue to determine whether they are in real, technical or otherwise non-compliance with the PUD agreement and how this can be remedied. Hughes said the applicants also hope to end existing litigation and to avoid any future litigation. Hughes told Council the applicants are constantly assessing community concerns about the hotel. Hughes said Judge Ossola did not have the background that Council and citizens have. Hughes said the background is susceptible to only one conclusion; that the Ritz Carlton amendments were subject to more scrutiny that anything else in Aspen. Hughes pointed out the applicants did not agree with the judge's decision and have asked Judge Ossola to reconsider his decision. Hughes said the applicant's participation in these proceedings is under full reservation of their rights in that litigation and the applicants are not waiving anything. Hughes said the Council is again being asked to pass amendments to the PUD. Hughes reminded Council there have been about 40 meetings on these amendments and most of these meetings have been quite well attended. Council passed resolution #11, which represented significant concessions on the part of the applicant in response to needs of the community. The applicants re-addressed architec- 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 tural concerns, re-worked the site design, upgraded the employee housing commitment, worked on height, scale and mass of the hotel. Hughes said Resolution #29 obligated the applicants to immediately obtain a building permit from the city and to start work, which they did. Hughes said the applicants have spent millions of dollars of hard costs in the construction of the hotel and other costs on obligations in the PUD agreement. Hughes said all the reliance has definite legal and significant equitable implications. Hughes said the applicants have kept up their end of the bargain; the city has benefitted from these improvements. The city has it in their power to correct the procedural oversight made last fall. Hughes objected to the participation of Councilman Peters and entered into the record a letter dated December 18, 1989. Hughes said the applicants sincerely believe there is a conflict of interest which affects their due process rights. Hughes entered into the record minutes and verbatim of transcripts of hearings that culminated in the adoption of Resolution #29, 1988. Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, said he was on P & Z from 1978 and 1982 and chaired the P & Z during conceptual review of the Roberts plan. Harvey said there was a goals task force report from the early '80s which discussed the fact that the economy is Aspen was skewed 65 percent to four months of winter. A goal was set that by 1995 the community would achieve a balance of 50/50 in revenue from the 4 months of winter and the remaining 8 months of the year. The recommendation of the report was that the most appropriate way to do this was a conference hotel located at the base of the mountain. Harvey said the 1966 Aspen area general plan, the 1973 Aspen land use plan identified the base of the mountain as the spot for intensive tourist/lodge usage. Harvey said the short term accommodations report of 1982 discussed the fact that the city was losing lodge rooms and reiterated the fact Aspen should have an intense base of lodge facilities at the foot of the mountain. Harvey said the Roberts submission was for a 480 room hotel on lots 1 and 5 plus a residential component. Harvey said there were 91 meetings of P & Z and Council over 30 months, which resulted in the PUD agreement recorded in December 1985. This agreement was for a 447 room hotel on two sites plus 14 residential units. Part of this agreement was commitments from the developer for underground- ing of utilities, storm sewer and water line upgrades, paving realignment of streets, etc. Harvey said there was a Koch lumber parcel donation, almost 125,000 square feet of open space was provided, and housing was provided for 198 people. Harvey said the approval granted in 1985 has been maintained and revalidated by Council through extensions from 1985 to 1988. Harvey said in order for extensions to be granted, there has to be a finding that it is in the continued best interest of the community. 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 Harvey said the Savanah group redeemed the property in the summer of 1987. Harvey said he talked to staff, P & Z and Council about an amendment to the approval. This was greeted with the fact that the community would want an amendment. There was a preapplication with planning staff in August 1987 to discuss the amendment. Harvey said the Savanah group needed an amendment because the PUD agreement called for an operator experienced in luxury hotels and an operator capable of attracting group meetings and conference business. Harvey said Savanah was in a position of having Ritz Carlton agree to be the operator. Both wanted to create greater operational efficiencies in the hotel, to redesign it so it would work better for the operator and for conference business. Harvey told Council John Roberts had not contracted with a hotel operator when he received his approval. Harvey told Council when the applicants met with staff in the pre- application conference to discuss how they could do an amendment, the applicants were told they had to stay within the parameters of the approved PUD. These parameters were to stay within the height, the footprint of the building, the concept of a first class hotel for conference business. Harvey said staff recommended to Council that this be treated not as a new project but as a PUD and GMP amendment. Council agreed and granted an extension to accommodate that review in the fall of 1987. Harvey said the amendment process under the code requires that the requested amendment be evaluated as compared to the approved plan. Harvey said if the city determines that the requested amendment is not a better plan, then the request is denied and the original approval remains in effect. Harvey said in order to change from the Roberts plan, there had to be something that was considered better. Harvey said during a year of review before P & Z and Council and almost 40 meetings, the applicant produced an amended plan that P & Z recommended for approval and that Council approved. The applicant went through a GMP rescoring at P & Z and it was determined that the had met the threshold and had maintained their position relative to other applicants. Harvey pointed out that subsequently an amended agreement and plat were signed and recorded. The applicant were bound to proceed, obtain building permits and to get on with the hotel. Harvey told Council under the Roberts ownership over $3,000,000 in housing, infrastructure for the project and the city was spent; during the last year the current applicants have spent an additional $3,000,000 in utility improvements and affordable housing. The applicants have spent $6,500,000 in hard construction over and above the money spent on the land in reliance on these approvals. Harvey said the amended plan had quite a few changes to the Roberts approval at the request of the community, P & Z and Council. 6 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 Harvey presented slides and drawings of the Roberts plan. Exhibit 2 is a colored rendering of the corner of Dean and Mill. Harvey said the Roberts plan was lodge type of architecture similar to the Little Nell hotel. Harvey said as the Roberts plan went through the process, they went through 5 major designs. Harvey said the major considerations were architectural compatibility, massing, height, site design and the impacts. Harvey told Council the applicants made presentations to over 1,000 people in different forums in the community. Harvey said some community residents took out an ad in the newspaper saying they were opposed to the hotel. The applicants met with the architects group. The planning office hired an outside architect who analyzed the plans of the hotel and made suggestions. The applicants met with this architect and also paid for it. Harvey presented exhibit #4. Harvey stated the results of all this input was sensitivity in the overall design. The applicants reduced the total hotel count on phase 1 and 2. Phase 1 is the Ritz Carlton; it is also lot 1; phase 2 is the Grand Aspen, the park and ice rink; it is also know as lot 5. Harvey said they reduced the total room count on phase 1 and 2 by 105 rooms from the Roberts approval of 447 to a total build out of 342. The applicants eliminated the residential units from the Ritz Carlton hotel. This is a total net of 67 rooms between what was existing and what is being constructed. There were about 120 lodge rooms on the Ritz Carlton site. The Roberts approval had 4 restaurants; this has been reduced to two restaurants. Harvey said the applicants have agreed to do no more than 115,000 square feet of FAR on phase two. The Roberts approval called for a maximum of 150,000 FAR. Underlying zoning allows 128,000 square feet. The applicants are 35,000 square feet below the maximum allowed under Roberts and 14,000 under the allowable by underlying zoning. Harvey said the PUD is 11.5 acres. Harvey said the applicants have increased the open space on lot 1 by 16,000 square feet over the Roberts plan; it is now 40,000 square feet. Zoning would require 28,150 square feet of open space. Harvey pointed out that as part of the amendment process, the applicants committed to leaving areas as a park, ice rink and community center which is additional open space from the Roberts approval. Harvey said there is a lot of open space on the Top of Mill, lot 3. Harvey said there is over 250,000 square feet of open space in the entire PUD. The under- lying zoning would require 71,000 square feet of open space on the total site. Exhibit 5 is the Ritz Carlton site on phase 1. Harvey reminded Council one of the major community concerns was the accessibility of the public to the courtyard of the hotel. Harvey said the PUD language calls for open space to be for the benefit of the users 7 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18. 1989 of the PUD, there was still concern about the courtyard and the public. Harvey explained the applicants tried to open up the courtyard on Monarch street with an overlook from the sidewalk and stairs into the courtyard. The applicants removed an 80 foot section from the hotel design and put in a one story building with a conditioned walkway to the hotel which the public can use to access the courtyard. Harvey said there is also the ski easement and the Koch lumber company for open space. Harvey told Council the code requires a 10 foot sideyard setback, a 10 foot rear yard setback and 5 feet on each side from the property line. The setback off of Dean street is 24 feet in both the Roberts plan and the present plan. On the side yard on Mill, the Roberts plan was 15 feet setback; the applicants increased the setback from the property line from 19 to 23 feet as opposed to the 5 feet required. On Monarch, the Roberts plan had 0 setback up to 15 feet. The present plan ranges from 12 to 19 feet in setbacks. The rear yard requirement is 10 feet in the code. The Roberts plan had a setback on the eastern wing of the rear yard of 25 feet; the applicants increased that setback to 34 and on the west side is 114 feet setback. Harvey said during the amendment process on the hotel, the applicants made many changes in the physical configuration. During P & Z, adjacent property owners said the building was too close to Monarch street. The applicants shifted the entire building 2 feet. P & Z requested other physical moves, which the applicants did. Harvey told Council Savanah and Ritz Carlton preferred the hotel to be one building, which is more efficient operationally. The community was very concerned about the mass of the building and during the process separated the hotel into 3 buildings with an apres ski lounge. The main building on Dean and Monarch has 162 hotel rooms; the east building on Mill street has 106 hotel rooms; the Blue Spruce site has 24 rooms. The Blue Spruce is connected by a pedestrian walkway about 60 feet in from the curb on Monarch street. Harvey said the applicants took an 80 foot section of the Mill street elevation, which creates two separate buildings. The buildings were shorted 9 and 14 feet over the Roberts plan. Harvey showed Dean street elevation, which is exhibit #6. The drawing showed the Roberts plan compared to the Ritz Carlton hotel. The applicants lowered the height and created separate elements to break it up and to keep it from reading as one building all the way across. Harvey showed the Monarch street elevation with the Blue Spruce building, showing how the building was shortened and lowered. This is exhibit #7. The Mill street elevation, exhibit #8, shows the pedestrian entrance at the north, the courtyard and the apres ski lounge. Harvey showed the comparisons of the Ritz hotel with the Roberts design. Harvey noted the use of the dormers set into the roof to create a different feel going up the street. 8 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 Harvey showed exhibit #9, the pedestrian entrance which tried to respond to the community and the City to create pedestrian scale and warmth. This is the northeast corner of Dean and Mill, the main pedestrian access, next to the apres ski lounge, the sports activity center. Exhibit #11 shows the service entrance on Monarch. There was concern there was not enough warmth for the pedestrian; the architects have designed in ,some windows and enriched landscaping. Harvey put up exhibit #14 which is a photograph of Wagner park with the Blue Spruce building and hotel rendered in as currently designed. Harvey told Council the Roberts plan called to house 198.5 employees . Harvey said no hotel project has ever offered more than 35 percent of their housing. This project has always been at 60 percent of its housing. The code now requires projects to house 60 percent of their employees. Harvey pointed out during the amendment process, the applicants reduced the hotel rooms by 105, they eliminated two restaurants and created a hotel that operates more efficiently and should have fewer employees. These reductions reduced the applicant's obligation to house 161.5 employees for the entire PUD. This was approved by the housing authority, P & Z and a majority of Council . The planning office memo now cites that the housing office says the project has to house 2 employees per hotel room. Harvey said the calculations done for the hotel were .36 per hotel room, 12.8 employees per 1,000 square feet of restaurant and 3.5 employees per square feet in retail. Harvey told Council there was a credit received for existing hotel rooms. There were long term units on the property and an obligation to house 29 people was added as a replacement. Harvey said the planning office memo states staff has looked at the Copper Horse and only 16 people can be housed according to their calculations. Harvey entered into the record an analysis prepared by Jim Curtis, a summary of Aspen Mountain Lodge employee housing submitted to the planning department and ratified in the approvals by Council. This is exhibit #15. Harvey reminded Council the Alpina Haus and the Copper Horse were accepted as employee housing; the city has recorded deed restrictions on these units. The obligation of housing 161.5 people was accepted by the applicant and the means of mitigation was accepted by Council. Harvey said there has been great concern that housing 161.5 people would not equal 60 percent of the generation of employees in the hotel. Harvey told Council if the applicants are wrong in their calcula- tions about employee housing, they can correct this in the future. The city will pick an auditor, and if the applicants are not housing 60 percent of the employees, the applicants have to provide that housing. Harvey said after Council approved the housing of 161.5 people, the applicants volunteered to build an additional 22 9 Reaular Meetina Aspen Citv Council December 18. 1989 units of housing for 37 people at Ute City place. This is housing 198.5 employees. Harvey said in June 1989, the applicant wrote a letter outlining their commitment to the future of Aspen and the actions that Savanah was willing to take to resolve the issues related to the Ritz Carlton. Harvey said this letter stated their goal of housing up to 100 more people. Harvey said the applicants received no response from Council to the letter, and at that time put the purchase of the Bavarian Inn on hold. Harvey said recently, the applicant optioned the property for affordable housing. Harvey said they will process a rezoning to the afford- able housing zone district. Harvey said if the applicants can put the controversy about the Ritz behind them with some affirmative action from Council on this ordinance, they are prepared to proceed with the Bavarian. Harvey said if the hotel is not built, they are not creating impacts and they do not have the capability of building the housing. Harvey stated the housing will be available well in advance of the audit and will also replace the 4 rooms of housing in the Grand Aspen. Harvey said the applicants feel the Ritz Carlton hotel is far superior in every category to the previous approval. Fred Smith asked when the Ritz opens if the Grand Aspen will be gone. Hughes said the approval has a date certain by which time the Grand Aspen will be demolished; 2 or 3 years from certificate of occupancy. Harvey said the community felt the moderate lodge base should be available for a few years during the transition. Also this area will be greatly impacted by the length of construc- tion and the residents wanted some breathing period. Herb Klein asked about the Bavarian offer. Hughes said the applicants need a clean bill of health on the hotel before they go ahead with the employee housing. Hughes said the ordinance has to be passed and there have to be no law suits. Mari Peyton said the applicants noted 100 hotel rooms have been eliminated, is that square footage still existing. Harvey said most of the square footage has been used. There has been some reduction but not the total amount. Nick deWolfe said it does not appear that 43 people will be able to live at the Copper Horse. deWolfe asked if a housing credit means someone is not actually living there. Harvey said the report was done and evaluated based on the beds and the number of people per bathroom. The letter submitted by Jim Curtis was dated April 1984. Phoebe Ryerson asked if the existing buildings, North of Nell and Aspen Square, have more stories than this building. Harvey said the Ritz will read as four stories on the Dean street elevation. The building varies from 2.5 stories to 5 stories as it goes up Mill and Monarch street. Harvey said it is hard to compare with other building's architecture. Mick Ireland asked the length and terms of the option on the Bavarian Inn. John Sarpa said this 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 information is recorded; it is proprietary. Sarpa said the applicants feel they have a sufficient length of time on the option to decide whether this project will be worked out or not. Jody Edwards asked the applicant to address external and internal FAR. Harvey said the PUD limitations in effect at the time this applicant was processed allow for variations in everything but density. Harvey said there is no density requirement, which is calculated at the amount of land needed per residential unit, for hotel rooms. Harvey said when one does a PUD, the entire acreage is used. The point of a PUD is to get more creative with planning, to move the FAR around, create open space, locate mass of build- ings. Harvey said since the approval in 1988, the Council passed an ordinance stating the underlying zone district external FAR could not be varied. The internal FAR could still be varied. Harvey said in a PUD with 5 lots, one would add up the FAR from the underlying zoning throughout the PUD and can still do the same thing in designing the buildings to create the best planning options. The planning office memorandum confirms the application is in compliance under the PUD regulations in effect at the time and is in compliance under the PUD regulations in effect now. Margot Pendleton asked how long it would take to get phase one done. Hughes said the applicants will address this with Council. Hughes said one of the problems in the past has been with the uncertainly of the project and the litigation. Hughes said if these get lifted, they will be in a position to propose precise development schedules. Harvey said part of the commitment are the units at Hunter Longhouse. This came about as $250,000 loan in order to save a foreclosure, which would have thrown the Hunter Longhouse units on the market. The Roberts group made a 12 year interest free loan to the Hunter Longhouse authority. Harvey said the value of the $250, 000 over 12 years is about $700, 000. Because of this loan, the property was deed restricted for the future as affordable housing. The housing authority also agreed to use this money as seed capital to construct 5 more units, which were constructed this years. Councilman Peters said at low income guidelines, the market value of the 69 units is about $2,200,000. Ms. Margerum reminded Council the applicants have agreed that after two years of operations to do an audit of how many employees actually are working at the Ritz. If there are more than 60 percent, they made a commitment to mitigate those impacts. Hughes said the applicants are making a statement that when they are free to build their hotel, they will be free to build affordable housing at the Bavarian Inn. Hughes said this is not a rider to Ordinance ## 6 9 . John Sarpa said the applicants do not feel Council or the appli- cants have the authority to make an amendment to Ordinance 69. Sarpa said if the ordinance process goes forward, the applicants 11 Regular Meeting ___ Aspen Citv Council December 18. 1989 will go forward with the employee housing. Harvey said the exact number of employees housed will be determined through the rezoning and site specific plan process. Councilman Crockett asked how many new employee units will be created as a result of this hotel project. Harvey said there will be 37. Richard Roth asked who the new financier of the hotel is and what role they will play in the Aspen Mountain subdivision. Sarpa said it is not true that the Savanah partnership was bought out. Savanah continues to be the managing general partner of the property. Sarpa said there are new partners; who they are and what their involvement is is a matter of proprietary information. Sarpa said 1001 Inc. is the developer of the project. Hughes said the property is owned by Savanah Limited partnership. Dewolfe asked if the employees living at the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus will be obliged to work for the Savanah corporation. Harvey said if Savanah puts their employees in these units, there will probably be some conditions drawn up that if the employee quits they can stay until the end of the season. Bruce Baldridge asked if there are negatives in the new plan over the Roberts plan. Harvey said they can find no negatives. Edwards said under the old code, which is what this project is trying to fit into, the FAR is .75:1 with the option to increase if one provides on-site employee housing. Mick Ireland asked if succes- sors in interest are bound by Savanah's promise to build the 90 employee housing units. Hughes answered no. Eddie Reiner asked if the hotel could be smaller. Sarpa said the applicants have reduced the number of rooms, have reduced the FAR, have made the hotel shorter, have increased the open space and have given more employee housing. Councilman Crockett asked if Koch lumber was a trade or a gift. Harvey said Koch lumber is two parcels of land; about 1/3 of the site was given in trade for some city-owned lots on Mill street; the other 2/3 was an outright gift to the city. Roger Tomasch told Council the lawyers involved have had a conference call with Judge Ossola last week. It was decided to move the hearing on the stay to January 17. Judge Ossola has said he will do his best prior to that to have ruled on the Savanah motion. If the judge makes that ruling prior to January 17th, that hearing will be moot. Mayor Stirling asked for a hand indication of people in favor of the hotel proposal and those opposed to the hotel proposal. Mayor Stirling said it was about 45 in favor and 10 opposed. Councilman Crockett asked the height of the hotel from the ground. Ms. Margerum told Council she calculated 64 feet of the elevator tower. Lee Miller, adjacent property owner, told Council this proposal is 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council. December 18. 1989 acceptable to him and to his homeowners and they are the most impacted. Richie Cohen asked if Council does not approve this, what does the town get? Ms. Stuller said the Roberts approval was superceded by the modifications that were requested by the applicant. Ms. Stuller said what happens to the modifications will determine what happens to the earlier approval. Harvey said if the ordinance is turned down, what is the status . Ms . Stuller said the applicants have a denied project. Hughes said the applicants disagree. Roth asked what financial role is Aspen Enterprises International playing in this project. Sarpa said his answer is the same as it was before. Ms. Margerum said the land use plan and the Aspen area accommoda- tions report both identified this area as a suitable site for expansion of resort accommodations. Ms. Margerum said this concept still stands as the area is close to downtown and mass transit. Ms. Margerum noted in the past 8 years there has been extensive redevelopment and upgrading of the tourist lodge base. There have been about 510 rooms rebuilt and 210 new rooms. Ms. Margerum told Council during the same time about 100 rooms have been lost. Ms. Margerum concluded there has been significant improvement in the quality and number of tourists accommodations. Ms. Margerum reminded Council there was a goal statement made that Aspen would like a large conference facility. Since this project was origi- nally approved there has not been a conference facility constructed in Aspen; however, there has been a large conference facility constructed in Snowmass. Ms. Margerum said the impacts since this project was approved have gotten worse. Traffic congestion coming into Aspen increased from 23,000 to 26,000 vehicles per day over Castle Creek bridge in the last 3 years. The air quality is relatively poor; there is limited parking. Ms. Margerum said the most significant change has been the situation with affordable housing, which has worsened over the last few years. Ms. Margerum said this situation has sparked changes in the land use code and in the affordable housing guidelines. Ms. Margerum said in reviewing the affordable housing provisions of the Aspen Mountain PUD, staff wanted to look at the hotel again and see what they would consider the impacts to be and how would these differ from what was agreed to in 1988. Ms. Margerum said the employee housing mitigation in the 1988 PUD agreement is only for the Ritz Carlton hotel, Galena place and Summit place and does not include other aspects of the PUD, like phase 2 and the Top of Mill. Ms. Margerum said housing authority looked at the calculation of the housing impacts done at the time of the original PUD agreement. The housing staff felt that a larger factor should have been used in calculating employees per room for this type of luxury hotel. Ms. Margerum reminded Council the applicants have agreed to an audit of the actual employees in 13 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council ___December 18. 1989 the hotel. Ms. Margerum told Council staff did a phone survey of other luxury hotels in the country and came up with factors that were higher than originally anticipated. Ms. Margerum said there is a larger range of uncertainty on how many employees will be generated. Ms. Margerum told Council staff came up with a shortfall of between 149 and 169 additional employees that would have to be housed as a result of the impact of this project, in addition to the commitment for 198. Ms. Margerum told Council in looking at the Copper Horse, staff used the affordable housing guidelines, which has a minimum of 125 square feet per person as acceptable square footage for housing. Ms. Margerum said staff does not feel the Copper Horse can accom- modate the number of employees anticipated. Ms. Margerum reminded Council there has been a change in the definition of open space in the code since the PUD approval. The old code allowed open space to be 10 feet below existing grade. This was changed to count open space only if it were 2 feet below grade; much of the open space at the Ritz Carlton hotel is below that 2 feet. Ms. Margerum pointed out open space is allowed to be varied in a PUD; density can be traded for more open space on some lots. Ms. Margerum said the Top of Mill has a lot of open space; however, it is quite removed from the Ritz Carlton hotel. Ms. Margerum said a change in the code that is not allowed to be varied anymore is the overall external floor area ratio. Ms. Margerum said in a PUD, the total floor area for the whole project cannot exceed that anticipated by the underlying zone district. Ms. Margerum presented a chart outlining this lot by lot as well as totals. Ms. Margerum said because of this change in the code, this project would be in excess of 63 , 000 square feet and would not be allowed under the land use code. Ms. Margerum said staff looked at the amount of parking being provided and feels this is somewhat under the parking requirement; however, this is not a real significant issue. Chuck Torinus asked who had asked staff to supply this information. Ms. Margerum said when a project is reheard under ordinance, the intent is to get new information so that Council can make a reasonable decision on factual information. Hughes said the applicants question. the relevance of this information, especially since the application was submitted well in advance of the new code. Harvey said the hotel has 220 subgrade parking spaces and 10 parking spaces on grade, for a total of 230 parking spaces. The code used to call for one parking space per hotel room. Baker said the code reads .7 space per hotel and 4 per 1,000 square feet of retail, which is where the requirement of 228 parking spaces is derived. Harvey said the housing authority guidelines for lodge development in terms of generation of employees until April 1989 14 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 was between .2 and .4 employees per room. Harvey said the housing office has changed this from .2 to 2 employees, which is more than a 500 percent increase. Harvey said in earlier discussions, the applicant agreed to use .36. Now the housing office is increasing this to two employees per room. Harvey said food and beverage was 12.8 employees per 1,000 square feet; the credit they got was 9. This was a complicated formula and was changed from the original application. Ms. Margerum said the guidelines were changed based on surveys done of other hotels and the average number of employees per room. This was not an arbitrary change. Ms. Margerum said the Little Nell hotel has 92 rooms and 120 employees, a factor of 1.3. Sarpa said the applicants have, at no time, tried to get away from the employee housing problem that faces the community. Sarpa said the applicants have proposed Ute City Place, and have now proposed the Bavarian Inn. Nick deWolfe said for each person employed, there may be a mate, haircuts, car repairs; what is the actual impact of employees on the town. Ms. Margerum said there is a multiplier effect. What staff was trying to do in this analysis is be consistent with what would be required of all other development in the community. Joe Wells pointed out in their January 1988 submission, the applicants identified 374 lodge rooms lost from the inventory. Since that time additional rooms have been lost from the inventory. Wells said this number does not include the 120 rooms already removed from the site of the Aspen Mountain lodge nor does it include conversion of the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse. Richard Roth asked if staff estimates this project is 169 employee units short, do they attached a dollar figure what it costs to house per bedroom and the land costs, how much of a subsidy it would take to house these people. Ms. Margerum said the in-lieu fees reflect a certain cost that has been calculated in the guidelines. This is between $10,000 and $30,000 per employee. Cohen asked if staff has calculated the possible revenue that would come back to the city from sales tax in a hotel like this. Ms. Margerum said the staff has not calculated this. Charlie Tarver asked if this would be new sales tax or money that would have been spent somewhere else in Aspen. Harvey said these are new dollars. Councilman Crockett asked if all the sales tax revenues taken in by the city, what is specifically earmarked for affordable housing. Mayor Stirling said sales tax is divided between the city, county and state and the city's is earmarked for special projects. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Herb Klein told Council he lives next door to the Bavarian Inn and is concerned about density and type of use. Klein expressed concern and opposition about the density and the dormitory use being discussed for the Bavarian Inn. Klein said the existing 15 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 Bavarian Inn has been a good neighbor. Klein told Council he supports their goal of trying to preserve neighborhood lodges. Klein said some of this property is zoned R-15, which is a lower density zone. Klein said to zone this property affordable housing density is absurd. Klein said because the applicants have not said the Bavarian Inn is part of Ordinance #69, he is not commenting on it. Richard Compton said he feels Ordinance #69 is an exercise in absurdity because according to present code it brings forward something which is null and void. Richard Cohen pointed out the Council has been charged by a judge to rectify a mistake. Cohen said the city would like the applicant to lower the room count or to supply more employee housing. Cohen said there is an economic break even point. Fred Smith, 601 S. Monarch, property owner directly across the street from the hotel, told Council this is a 3 5 foot wide street . Smith told Council when he purchased his unit in 1976, he relied on the fact that the building that could replace the lodge could be 28 feet high. Smith said the ability to vary height is to give people architectural flexibility, not a variance to allow a project to be as much as twice as high as anything in the community. Smith pointed out directly across from his residence this building is higher than the approved Roberts building. Smith said it is nearly 60 feet high from grade level. Smith said he feels the process has been misused; that the applicants got the extra height by giving an ice rink, part of a park, the Koch lumber property. Smith said that is not how a PUD is supposed to work. Smith asked Council to protect the right of citizens living near the hotel. Mary Martin said she is in favor of passing this ordinance. Ms. Martin said she feels the judge's ruling means Council should correct their process, not take off 30 rooms. Ms. Martin said this hotel went through a legitimate process and many, many hearings. Ms. Martin suggested Council is using this hotel as a scapegoat for their own problems. Ms. Martin asked if Council has retroactively gone back to other projects and asked for more parking or more employee housing. Rachel Richards said the opposition to this project has had to do with two areas of concerns, the impact on the community of inadequate employee housing and the size and mass of the project. Ms. Richards said the opposition is from residents of the community which crosses all economic lines. Ms. Richards said she resents insistence that the decision rendered by Judge Ossola was wrong. Ms. Richards said it is upsetting to hear that the Ritz applicants have proceeded with the construction while the outcome of the lawsuits are pending and building the city into a legal corner. Ms. Richards said by increasing the employee housing, the applicants are still not responding to the concerns in the lawsuit. 16 Reaular Meetina Aspen Citv Council December 18, 1989 Marsha Goshorn said Council expects reliance from other people but does not seem to be able to give it on their own. Saul Barnett said the judge's ruling was a motion for summary judgement. Barnett said the plaintiffs said that the resolution that was passed is illegal and invalid and they are entitled to judgement in the case without having to go to trial. Barnett said the defendants have said they are entitled to a judgement because it is valid. Barnett said the judge ruled for the plaintiffs and that a resolution was an improper way of approving the Ritz hotel. Barnett said the plaintiffs also requested that they wanted an injunction to prevent any continued building on site. The judge did not grant any relief and simply said he rules in favor of the plaintiff's request for a summary judgement and the resolution is invalid and returned it to Council to take appropriate action. Barnett pointed out there has never been a vote on the Ritz Carlton. There was a vote on an amendment to the PUD provisions in the code which would have applied to subsequent hotel develop- ment. Barnett recommended Council adopt the ordinance and allow the citizens to have a vote on the hotel. Nick DeWolfe said he is concerned about the human impact on the community with this giant project. DeWolfe said it seems some old lodges are being filled up as dormitories with people to operate this large hotel. DeWolfe said times and the economy have changed. DeWolfe said he is concerned about the impact of 1,000 to 2,000 new people involved in this economy. DeWolfe said he is against this proposal. Jim Curtis said he has been active in supporting a point of view on this project because he perceives this to be the biggest project in the history of Aspen. Curtis said with the situation today in the community, he does not see how Council can be talking about approving this project without seeking adjust- ments. Curtis said he is supportive of the hotel but in context with the community and whose impacts can be accepted by the community. Bill Davis said he is concerned about what would happen to the fiscal structure of this community is the courts decide that what has gone on in money invested that Council did reverse itself and the city is held liable. Davis said the city would have investment problems and future growth problems. Sally Roach said no one disagrees that employee housing is a problem or that the approvals of the hotel do not concur with today's code. Ms. Roach said the issue is one of fairness. Ms. Roach pointed out the Hotel Lenado, Sardy House, Hotel Jerome and Little Nell were all approved through resolution not ordinance; perhaps the judge did not understand that was standard operating procedure. Ms. Roach said another issue is one of uniting the community or tearing it apart. Ms. Roach said there is reneging going on here. Ms. Roach urged Council to approve this. Carol Dopkin agreed with Ms. Roach, Ms. Martin and 17 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 Mr. Davis that this project has been approved and she is in favor of it. Mari Peyton said the citizens of this community should have reliance that the city will go by its own rules and procedures. Ms. Peyton said she does not think it right that people cash in by breaking the city's codes that every property owner who has complied with the code has created a value for. Ms. Peyton said there are other reliances besides dollars. Michael Kinsley said under the state constitution the Council's word is not necessarily the community's word. The community is in a position to reverse Council's word; however, the community can only do this by initiative if the action taken by Council is by ordinance. Council's action made it impossible under the constitution for the community to second guess Council and the community was being stopped from exercising their franchise. Kinsley said the community has a reliance that the Council would stick to its zoning and to the state constitution. Kinsley said the conditions have changed and will be exacerbated by this project. Kinsley said the fact the community has recognized this change was reflected in the results of the last election and that anti-growth candidates were elected to office. Caroline Mcdonald said she lives near the Copper Horse, which is currently holding 15 people but under the applicant's proposal would house 43 people. Ms. Mcdonald said the Council has not gone by its rules. Ms. Mcdonald said she is concerned about the amount of employees that will be needed for this project. Ms. Mcdonald said the applicant has gone through the process and it is fair they should get to do what they are doing. Les Holst said the basic problem is that the applicant paid too much money for the land and he is asking the community to correct this problem. Holst said the community should not go through this because the applicant made a mistake. Holst said if he had a choice he would vote for a smaller hotel. Mick Ireland said both sides have something lacking. Ireland concurred this should be put on the ballot and resolved by the electorate. Phoebe Ryerson said she cannot imagine other places stalling around and playing unfairly with applicants who have paid up and paid up. Margot Pendleton urged Council to approve this ordinance. Ms. Pendleton said the applicants have bent over backwards to comply with the rules. Chris Bigley said he is in favor of the hotel. Charlie Tarver said whether this is passed or not, the city should learn something from this. Tarver said if the city is going to come up with a zoning plan or an employee housing plan, they should use them. Richard Roth said there never has been a direct vote on the Ritz Carlton hotel. Roth said he got signatures on a petition and Council refused to grant an election. Roth said this was 18 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 adopted by resolution so Council could deny a direct election on the project. Roth requested Council require full disclosure of who the financial partners are in the partnership and in the corporation. Roth urged Council not to approve this project; it is 300 rooms short for employees; it is 40 feet too high, and it is much too dense. Bruce Baldridge said Council should approve this project. Baldridge said if Council drives the applicants to the wall, they will build the Roberts plan. This approved plan is much better than the Roberts plan. Chuck Torinus said this process bothers him as the town is being affected adversely by the process. Torinus favors Council approving the ordinance out of fairness and equity and sustaining what was done by a former Council. Torinus said the applicants have jumped through all the hoops. Bill Martin supports was Torinus said. Ms. Mcdonald said she feels people should vote on whether they want the ordinance. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Peters moved to suspend the rules and continue the meeting to 10 p.m. ; seconded by Mayor Stirling. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Crockett. Motion carried. Mayor Stirling moved to adopt Ordinance #69, Series of 1989, on second reading conditioned as follows: (1) the ordinance will not be effective until its approved in one of two forms by the electorate, and (2) the question shall be submitted to the voters at the special municipal election scheduled for February 13, 1990; at that election there will be submitted two questions in the alternative (a) Shall ordinance #69, Series of 1989, be adopted with the following changes, recommending that the planning director make specific recommendations as regards to possible reduction of mass and bulk, external floor area ratio and recommendations to affordable housing; (b) the second question would be shall Ordinance #69, Series of 1989, be adopted conditioned only upon adding affordable housing for no less than 90 workers more than was approved in September 1988 not specifying any specific project; seconded by Councilman Peters. Mayor Stirling said the voters will determine the outcome and Ordinance #69 will not be approved until the voters have determined this outcome in February. Mayor Stirling said this discussion in front of Council was triggered by a judge's decision. A previous Council approved the Ritz Carlton PUD. According to Judge Ossola, that Council acted illegally and the September 1988 decision is not binding at this time. Judge Ossola has charged Council to go through the ordinance process; Council was not charged in the ruling to simply ratify what was approved. Mayor Stirling said he - has always supported a hotel in this location; it is a question of 19 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 size. Mayor Stirling said in good conscience the majority of Council in 1988 supported the amended Ritz. Also in good con- science the majority of the current Council seems not to be favorable to the approach that was approved in September 1988. Mayor Stirling said the proposed hotel is controversial because it is so much bigger than what is allowable and it is out of line with zoning. Mayor Stirling said often people think something is a good idea until they begin to see it emerge. Councilman Crockett said the motion is premature. Councilman Crockett said he would rather hear some recommendations from the planning office and vote on this motion tomorrow. Councilman Peters said when Judge Ossola remanded this question to Council, the Council could have done nothing, said the approval was null and void and the applicants would have to go back to the beginning. Councilman Peters said Council took the position that is was appropriate for Council to process an ordinance correctly. Councilman Peters said this does not mean the Council rubber stamps the previous approval without thinking. Council is supposed to be aware of conditions when they approve projects and to think about what they are doing. Councilman Peters said it was not just a minor technicality that caused this case to be remanded to Council. Councilman Peters said he will consider changed conditions and will consider making changes to the hotel. Councilman Peters said he was elected to deal with circumstances in Aspen to date and to suggest he should do what the prior Council did is out of the spirit of what the judge has remanded to Council. Councilman Tuite said he has supported the Ritz in the past on the basis of good faith. Councilman Tuite said he hopes the community can put this aside in the near future and learn to live together. Aspen is a small town. Councilman Crockett said he supports putting this issue to the voter. Councilman Crockett said one of his goals is to insure that the community profits as much from it's reliance on the elected officials. Councilman Gassman said his goal is to get this over with and to get out of existing and potential litigation. Councilman Gassman said he supports referring this to the voters. Councilman Gassman said one choice to the voters has to be the proposal that is on the table; the other choice has to be the Council's choice. Mayor Stirling said the first choice was to approve the September 1988 approval by ordinance; however, the judge's decision has clouded that. Another option is to approve changes to Ordinance #69 at the Council table and pass the ordinance. Mayor Stirling agreed there has never been a vote on the Ritz. Mayor Stirling said an election will not delay anything. Mayor Stirling said he is not suggesting a stop work order; there will be no new permits issued between now and February 13, 1990. Mayor Stirling said just asking the voters whether they approve Ordinance #69 or not, if the 20 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 voters turned that down the voters would not know what is on the Council's mind. Councilman Gassman moved to continue this item and the meeting to 5 p;m. December 19; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #72, SERIES OF 1989 - Appropriations Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Gassman moved to adopt Ordinance #72, Series of 1989, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Crockett. Councilman Tuite said this ordinance contains $10,000 for the car pool program. Dan Blankenship has come up with a budget and the city's share will be $7625. Councilman Gassman moved to amend Ordinance #72, Series of 1989, to show $7625; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Crockett, yes; Tuite; yes; Peters, yes; Gassman, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. ORDINANCE #74, SERIES OF 1989 - Greystones Final Subdivision Leslie Lamont, planning office, reminded Council at the first discussion, the lowering of the fence and how to define the reduction in height was a discussion. Ms. Lamont told Council the fence currently measures from 6 feet to 5'6". Ms. Lamont recom- mended the fence be dropped to 4 feet at the center and run from 4'3" west end to 3'9" on the east end. Ms. Lamont said P & Z had agreed to some wrought iron work on top of the fence. Councilman Peters moved to amend #2 to say prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall make a one time payment in lieu indexed to the current affordable housing guidelines in effect at the time of payment or as an alternative may provide off- site housing through a buy down or newly constructed housing program which shall provide an equal number of full time equivalent employee housing units; seconded by Councilman Crockett. Buzz Dopkin, applicant, told Council he has agreed upon a cash in lieu figure; however, if something comes up that is more desirable to him and/or helpful to the community, it will be at his discre- tion to accept either one. Dave Myler, city attorney's office, said he would like to reserve the option to discuss with Council - the character of the unit to make sure it is acceptable. Ms. 21 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council __ December 18, 1989 Lamont told Council the payment in lieu is $112,500. Mayor Stirling clarified that if Dopkin is able to purchase a unit that satisfies the city for $60,000 and the unit is deed restricted, that is fine. Dopkin said he will have to pay more if he gets a building permit in the spring when the affordable housing guide- lines may be higher. Amy Margerum, planning director, said Council should follow her recommendation and include language that the city has to accept whatever kind of housing the applicant comes up with that is acceptable to the planning office and housing authority prior to getting a building permit. Ms. Lamont said the $112,500 cash-in-lieu reflects 3.75 employees, and this figure will never change. Mayor Stirling agreed there has to be reliance for the applicant. Councilman Peters said all the applicant has to do is provide the equivalent employee housing and he is not burdened to provide an indexed cash-in-lieu payment. Ms. Margerum said staff recommenda- tion is that this be indexed at the time it is paid; if the applicant wants to vest they pay the fee at that time. If the guidelines change, the applicant will be subject to that change. Carol Dopkin suggested the applicant pay $112,00 if he does the project in this building season. Tom Baker, planning office, pointed out the housing guidelines generally change in April. Mayor Stirling said Dopkin said if he finds the buy down after April and the buy downs change, the city will refund the option. Mayor Stirling said the money has to be paid by April to insure the $112,500. Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance ##74, Series of 1989, as amended; seconded by Councilman Gassman. Councilman Peters moved to amend the motion to add the condition this will be presented and approved by the housing authority and planning office; seconded by Councilman Crockett. All in favor, motion carried. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Peters, yes; Tuite, yes; Crockett, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #75, SERIES OF 1989 - Sportstalker Final Subdivision Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Tuite moved to adopt Ordinance #75, Series of 1989, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Crockett, yes; Peters, yes; Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. 22 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 1989 RESOLUTION #53, SERIES OF 1989 - Residential GMQS Allocation Councilman Tuite moved to adopt Resolution #53, Series of 1989, with the amendments made to Ordinance #74 above; seconded by Councilman Gassman. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #79, SERIES OF 1989 - Kraut Subdivision Exemption Kim Johnson, planning office, told Council this is for a sub- division exemption of lots E through I, block 105. The parcel is 15, 000 square feet, and is located at the southwest corner of Hyman and Original. The applicant wants to split this into one 6,000 square foot lot and one 9,000 square foot lot. This parcel is zoned O, office. Councilman Gassman moved to read Ordinance #79, Series of 1989; seconded by Councilman Gassman. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #79 (Series of 1989) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUB- DIVISION EXEMPTION FOR THE KRAUT LOT SPLIT was read by the city clerk Councilman Gassman moved to adopt Ordinance #79, Series of 1989, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Tuite, yes; Peters, yes; Crockett, yes; Gassman, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Crockett moved to continue the meeting to December 19 at 5:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk 23